Times Readers Online Make Their Own Cases for Legalizing Marijuana

WE learned something about New York Times online commenters recently: They are far, far more supportive of marijuana legalization than the average American.

Over the last 10 days, The Times’s Editorial Board published a series calling for an end to the federal ban on marijuana. This stance, we realized, was hardly avant-garde. As we noted in an essay on public views, a majority of Americans now favor legalizing use of the drug. But this majority is not especially large: 54 percent to 42 percent, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest poll.

In the comments section of the High Time series, we asked readers to state their preference: for legalization, against it or unsure. Obviously, combing through Internet comments won’t yield results that are publishable in a scientific journal. Still, the lopsided response seems to indicate that Times readers — at least readers of the online edition — overwhelmingly believe that prohibition is pointless.

As of Tuesday afternoon, roughly 15,000 comments were published online on seven editorials: 12,658 were for, 982 against, and 254 unsure. (Not everyone chose a category. And letters to the editor, by contrast, were far more mixed.)

By and large, readers seem to support legalization for the same reasons the editorial writers do. They are convinced marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and believe that the criminalization of marijuana is more likely to ruin lives than marijuana itself. Arrest and incarceration for possession of a relatively harmless substance is, to many readers, unacceptable.

Mark Hanna of Virginia summed up the consensus view: “Like many wars, the war on drugs has caused too much carnage. Let’s responsibly legalize marijuana.”

Kyle of Oklahoma made the same point in more detail: “No matter how bad you think marijuana is for kids, teens or adults, the fact is that arrest, incarceration, and the ruin they bring is worse. The question is not whether marijuana is ‘O.K.’ It is how [to] effectively deal with it. Illegality and moral censure are and should remain separate tools. ... I think many people are worried about losing control of their kids, but I don’t think a single one of them wants to see their kid locked up.”

And Justine, a nurse in Portland, Ore., wrote from personal experience: “I have yet to see one patient come through our doors suffering the long-term consequence of pot use. Not one. Alcohol? I can’t even begin to count. And when they do, it is very ugly. Patients in the E.R. because someone smoked a couple of joints and got violent? Not so much.”

Not surprisingly, commenters did advance arguments that the Editorial Board overlooked, or touched upon only in passing. Some, including Daniel of Alabama, supported legalization on ideological, libertarian grounds: “I reject the federal government’s right to decide what I put in my body. Even if it was ‘bad’ for you, so what? We don’t ban skydiving, driving in cars, hunting, professional backyard wrestling, traveling to 3rd world countries, sugary foods and beverages, standing outside during thunderstorms with a metal pole, swimming after eating, caffeine, ibuprofen, alcohol, cigarettes or prescription drugs, all of which are statistically more likely to harm you.”

Other readers endorsed legalization as a way to reduce the power of drug cartels. Pedro, a reader in Mexico City, explained: “In Mexico, we have a bloody war against drugs. ... This prohibition has done [nothing] but destroy people by putting them in jail. Drug dealers killing each other for territory, etc. There are more cartels than there were when the prohibition started. This prohibition has only empowered drug dealers. I say let cannabis [be] free. Stop benefiting the cartels.”

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Instead of allowing gangs to profit from marijuana, some readers suggested that local governments could patch up their budgets by taxing the drug. “In this era of dwindling coffers,” wrote Kelli Dunaway of St. Louis, “it seems that the regulation, sale and taxation of marijuana offers some badly needed fiscal relief. In my state, that may be the only argument with any impact.”

ALTHOUGH the vast majority of readers wrote in support of legalization, there was, of course, some dissent. There were readers who considered the series downright reckless and who questioned our priorities.

Robert Jackson of Denver said “we need to put the needs of America’s youth ahead of the needs of people who want to get stoned.” He dismissed the notion that “pot is a safe and harmless drug” as the product of a “well-funded blitzkrieg propaganda campaign,” and called the argument that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana a “propaganda tactic of distraction.” Sam Coulter of New York was more blunt: “Arguing [marijuana] should be legal just because alcohol is legal is just plain stupid.”

We expected some readers to make the slippery-slope case against legalizing marijuana, and they did. Keval Parekh of New Jersey wrote, sarcastically, “Sure, Democrats, let’s fully legalize marijuana. ... And while we’re at it, how about cocaine, meth, heroin and LSD.” But he also took a rather surprising position: He called on Republicans to “end their hypocritical stance on alcohol and tobacco. ... They should come out as against ALL types of drugs (including alcohol and tobacco)!”

Mr. Parekh was not the only reader to recommend doubling-down on prohibition. Susan of Boston identified herself as “someone who thinks tobacco smoking should be outlawed.”

Somehow we don’t anticipate “repeal the 21st amendment, ban tobacco” working as a slogan on the campaign trail; certainly any candidate who suggested blanket prohibition would lose The Times’s readership. In fact, many readers argued that legalization — rather than continued or broader prohibition — was the political winner. They noticed the near-unanimity in the comments section, and, perhaps getting a little carried away, imagined hope-and-change emanating from the White House.

Chris of Virginia had some advice for President Obama: “He should use executive authority to legalize marijuana on a national level and let each state decide their own laws. This could be an opportunity for Pres. Obama to cement his legacy and give the nation what it clearly desires.”

The president would, at least, be giving a majority of Times commenters what they clearly desire.

A version of this editorial appears in print on August 6, 2014, on Page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Times Readers Online Make Their Own Cases for Legalizing Marijuana. Today's Paper|Subscribe